Dems keep inciting hate of whites by blacks; do they ever stop to think where that will end?
War is hell. But with the Left--Democrats and so-called "progressives" and their allies in the Lying Media--continuing to deliberately fan the flames of insane hate in their supporters, I think we're rapidly approaching a point at which it will be impossible to avoid civil war. And I think this tragic conclusion is pretty obvious.
So here's a question for the rational folks out there: Did any of the Democrats --or their Lying Media allies-- think there was a good chance inciting all this race hate would end in war, or were they too f'n stupid to realize the totally predictable outcome of fanning the flames of hate in their insanely angry followers?
In just the past week I've read a dozen posts by angry blacks in the U.S. demanding that whites kill themselves, or resign from their jobs. Oddly, most of these angry people are nominally female; odd because biology suggests males are usually more aggressive, violent, have problems managing anger etc. Maybe it's just a coincidence.
The actual shooting phase of the war is likely to start when a group of "youths of unknown ethnicity" try to rob a guy of a different ethnicity. Every time they've done this in the past it's been a slam-dunk, since they both outnumber their target 5 or 10 to one and also have the huge advantage of surprise when they attack. But this time--"unexpectedly"--the intended victim will not only be armed, but will also be an excellent shot--probably either a military veteran or law enforcement. He'll have a 14-round mag and will shoot all of the attackers, several fatally.
At least one of the would-be robbers will survive. Egged on by greedy defense attorneys looking for a big payday, the survivor will claim that he and his friends did absolutely nothing wrong but were simply walking down the street when the white guy started shooting 'em. This story will immediately be posted on social media, and everyone in that community will believe it--exactly as happened in Rainbow City, Alabama.
But unfortunately, since the shooter wasn't a cop he won't have been wearing a bodycam, so there won't be any way to prove who's telling the truth.
Think Ferguson, Missouri, with a lot more bodies and fewer witnesses.
Remember the insane amount of rioting and looting and burning that consumed Ferguson for weeks? And in that case there was video of the so-called "gentle giant" doing a strong-arm robbery of a convenience-story owner hours earlier, tending to support the cop's version. Didn't make any difference. The hood was primed to riot, and riot they did.
Now imagine 8 or 10 bodies instead of one, and no video to show what really happened.
If you think that won't set off a civil war don't feel odd: not a single political analyst thought the assassination of a fairly low-ranking duke would touch of World War 1 either.
And I don't see how this can be avoided. Democrats continue to fan the flames of hate from their always-outraged supporters, and don't show the slightest hint that they're willing to stop. Cuz hey, it works for 'em--brings in scads of money and votes. Why would they stop what they see as a winning strategy?
So here's a question for the rational folks out there: Did any of the Democrats --or their Lying Media allies-- think there was a good chance inciting all this race hate would end in war, or were they too f'n stupid to realize the totally predictable outcome of fanning the flames of hate in their insanely angry followers?
In just the past week I've read a dozen posts by angry blacks in the U.S. demanding that whites kill themselves, or resign from their jobs. Oddly, most of these angry people are nominally female; odd because biology suggests males are usually more aggressive, violent, have problems managing anger etc. Maybe it's just a coincidence.
The actual shooting phase of the war is likely to start when a group of "youths of unknown ethnicity" try to rob a guy of a different ethnicity. Every time they've done this in the past it's been a slam-dunk, since they both outnumber their target 5 or 10 to one and also have the huge advantage of surprise when they attack. But this time--"unexpectedly"--the intended victim will not only be armed, but will also be an excellent shot--probably either a military veteran or law enforcement. He'll have a 14-round mag and will shoot all of the attackers, several fatally.
At least one of the would-be robbers will survive. Egged on by greedy defense attorneys looking for a big payday, the survivor will claim that he and his friends did absolutely nothing wrong but were simply walking down the street when the white guy started shooting 'em. This story will immediately be posted on social media, and everyone in that community will believe it--exactly as happened in Rainbow City, Alabama.
But unfortunately, since the shooter wasn't a cop he won't have been wearing a bodycam, so there won't be any way to prove who's telling the truth.
Think Ferguson, Missouri, with a lot more bodies and fewer witnesses.
Remember the insane amount of rioting and looting and burning that consumed Ferguson for weeks? And in that case there was video of the so-called "gentle giant" doing a strong-arm robbery of a convenience-story owner hours earlier, tending to support the cop's version. Didn't make any difference. The hood was primed to riot, and riot they did.
Now imagine 8 or 10 bodies instead of one, and no video to show what really happened.
If you think that won't set off a civil war don't feel odd: not a single political analyst thought the assassination of a fairly low-ranking duke would touch of World War 1 either.
And I don't see how this can be avoided. Democrats continue to fan the flames of hate from their always-outraged supporters, and don't show the slightest hint that they're willing to stop. Cuz hey, it works for 'em--brings in scads of money and votes. Why would they stop what they see as a winning strategy?
posted by SF at
4:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home